So, the Devil came down to Georgia... (Xtians, you're wanted here! Paisley, that means your ugly face too!)

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
So, the Devil came down to Georgia... (Xtians, you're wanted here! Paisley, that means your ugly face too!)

...Or wherever you happen to live.

He approaches you (let's skip the part where he proves that he's really Satan. He just is, and you just know it, at this point in the hypothetical scenario) bearing crucial news:

You've been had!

 

He's not really the bad guy. God is. All this time, God's had you convinced of the 'Ten Commandments' and 'Sin' and 'Confessing' so that he'd have the goods on all your fears, desires and dirty secrets when you kick the bucket - so when you follow Jesus up the golden ladder, *BAM!*, he'll have the perfect set-up to have you screaming in agony for all the rest of forever (an awfully long time).

Hell, man - that's the fucking ticket. He *BAMFS!* you into the abyss for a quick look, and mostly, it's a lot like the 6th video down on the far left hand column of this page. Essentially just a lot of lusty indulgence in all of lifes pleasures.

He then *BAMFS!* you back to Earth, and points out all the evidence in the Good Book that God isn't a very swell dude. Finally, he contends that there is no convincing evidence that he himself is so terrible, and the God has unfairly manufactured an adversarial relationship between humans and him in order to deny people a comforting afterlife.

 

Now what? How would you grill Satan to find-out the truth of the matter? Would you bother grilling him at all?

Oh, and curiously, God remains his mysterious self during the whole affair - and wholly absent (physically, anyway).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I don't want to say that and

I don't want to say that and I have never meant it. I bet that you do know more than I do about sociobiology, etc. BUT you are missing my point.

The only reason you (plural) are getting angry is that I have a point that you know you can't counter: I can create an ethical system from my metaphysical views, while the closest you can come is improvise one with a legislative system. The fact that I know less in the relevant fields adds the insult.

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I don't want to say

Quote:
I don't want to say that and I have never meant it. I bet that you do know more than I do about sociobiology, etc. BUT you are missing my point.

No, I understand your point perfectly.  It's just wrong.

Quote:
The only reason you (plural) are getting angry is that I have a point that you know you can't counter: I can create an ethical system from my metaphysical views, while the closest you can come is improvise one with a legislative system. The fact that I know less in the relevant fields adds the insult.

No, you can't.  You can steal from a naturalist position and call it metaphysical, but so what? 

Legislative systems are so far after the fact for this conversation that it's pointless to bring them up.  The scientific model predicts legislative systems based on the pre-existing innate moral sense, which has empirical support.

But then... you don't know anything about that, do you?

I'm done dickering with you.  You've proved yourself to be a fraud, and I'm content to let the others argue with you if they want.  (Yes, Kevin... if you'd like to explain the science model to him, the wall is ready for your head.)

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

I don't want to say that and I have never meant it. I bet that you do know more than I do about sociobiology, etc. BUT you are missing my point.

The only reason you (plural) are getting angry is that I have a point that you know you can't counter: I can create an ethical system from my metaphysical views, while the closest you can come is improvise one with a legislative system. The fact that I know less in the relevant fields adds the insult.

This seems like a false dichotomy -- that value may only be assigned to arbitrary objects by a metaphysical framework.

Value may be assigned from almost any naturalistic viewpoint. As I mentioned in another post, I like to enjoy life. That is not a metaphysical position, yet from that simple statement, you may derive an entire ethical system which is prescriptive, not legislative. The resulting moral framework allows for altruism, generosity, and general good-will towards other people.

Now, as other people may subscribe to different naturalistic worldviews, there is no "ultimate" universal morality. So, yes, we are left with legislative doctrine to ensure people are free to pursue their worldviews without interfering with other peoples' rights to pursue their own worldview. That certainly doesn't preclude morality, just universal morality.

Unfortunately, theistic morality also precludes universal morality. As evidence, I submit every single theistic belief system in the world. There is not one single point of unity among those moralities. (Of course, I also submit every single theistic belief system in the world as evidence God doesn't exist, and for the same reasons. So you may dismiss this logic out-of-hand.)

As you have hinted, it is impossible to know the ultimate nature of God. So, any absolutely-certain derivative of His moral imperative is also impossible. You are left in the same bind as atheists: which version is correct?

For example, in the instance of Christianity, there is fundamentalism, which insists homosexuality is wrong, and the more liberal belief that homosexuality is morally acceptible. Which view is right? Why? And why does this schism exist in Christianity to begin with, if morality truly comes from God, and they worship the same God?

How do you come by your morality from God? How is it you know the mind of God enough to be sure of your morality? Is your morality the exact same as those who share your belief? If not, is it a failure in the unity of the metaphysics, or a failure in the application of the metaphysics to derive an ethical system?

I know my morality is correct. As it's not based on revelation, but on logic, I am absolutely certain it is correct, for me. As part of my morality is the imperative to allow others to pursue their own happiness in whichever way the deem appropriate, I do not meddle in others lives. As I believe my happiness is dependent on the happiness of others, I do my best to increase the overall happiness in the world, as their happiness is at least partly dependent on me. As I believe I am privileged to lead a happy, joyous life, I believe it is my duty to not contribute to the destruction of the world, so those who come after may also enjoy their lives.

You don't need a metaphysical structure to derive a prescriptive ethical system.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

Well, I always knew I was a tool, but that's beside the point.

I haven't really been following this all that much, and don't want to bag on u without reading the whole thread, but just saying this statement would make an excellent signature...if not for you, then someone else....lol.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, yeah... one more thing

Oh, yeah... one more thing before I abandon this thread entirely...

Who was the genius who decided that humans didn't have morality until we developed philosophy and figured out that we ought to be good to each other?

I mean, seriously, how dense do you have to be to miss the point that humans were ethical before we developed the means to describe ethics.  How else would society have evolved?

Duh.

If nothing else, that's prima facie evidence that morality precedes philosophy and MUST be evolutionary.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:Sir

HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

Well, I always knew I was a tool, but that's beside the point.

I haven't really been following this all that much, and don't want to bag on u without reading the whole thread, but just saying this statement would make an excellent signature...if not for you, then someone else....lol.

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Does evil

ronin-dog wrote:
Does evil exist in the world? I would say yes (in humans at least). I would attribute it to environmental factors (bad upbringing, especially those poor people live in war zones, bad choice of friends/subculture, including religion, etc) and/or bad wiring in the head. There is no need for there to be a personified deity.

Of course the theme we are pondering here (totally hypothetically) is: are you sure it is "satan" and not God doing all of this? Just because God has a book, does that make him right? Even in the bible, all of these evils are quite within God's character. If this is God's character, why is it assumed that Satan (the adversary) is bad? Of course, as I have always argued, if God is omnipotent (and more powerful than satan) then everything that happens is God's will and He is responsible for all of the evil in the world.

Good.  We agree that objective evil exists.  We disagree as to its origin.  You say that human evil (ie, evil as a result of the actions of man) are the result of physical factors beyond our control.  I say that human evil is the result of a fundamental flaw, a certain concupiscence, if you will, in the very nature of man.  Following your path, I think we end up at the point where each and every evil act is inevitable based on events beyond the control of the individual.  My view makes evil the choice of each individual, an leaves the individual personally responsible for his actions.

First, I believe that an evil entity, which I call Satan, exists.  Although I believe that, I do not think he is responsible for all evil in the world.  I believe he played a role in the introduction of evil into the world, I believe that he takes advantage of the concupiscence which I mentioned, and yes, I even believe that from time to time he physically interferes in the affairs of the world.

I see God as being responsible for the existence of evil in the world to the extent that an automobile manufacturer is responsible for the car wreck I have by virtue of the fact that the manufacturer made my automobile.  God works to correct the damage done to His creation through His creation.  Hence, it is my responsibility to discern the will of God and to act in accordance with that will.  I am, you are, we all are the hands of God.

Quote:
So the destruction of these nations (including women and children and other innocents) does not matter because they are fought "in defense of objective good"? So the crusades, the slaughter of the native americans etc are fine?

The destruction of nations at the time was the nature of war, that was the measure of victory.  Has this concept really changed in four thousand years?  Hasn't recent warfare shown that we are capable of much greater destruction than kings like David could ever imagine?  Haven't we, in modern times, slaughtered innocents nearly beyond counting in the pursuit of "good"?  Look at Guernica, Dresden, Rotterdam, London, Berlin, Dresden and Tokyo, where we slaughtered hundreds of thousands from the air.  Then there's the siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad.  Remeber the mess in the former Yugoslavia. Oh, and the African wars of genocide in Rwanda, and now Darfur.  What about the employment of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  No, my friend, time has not softened man's nature one little bit.  We still wage war against the civilian populace with as much zeal as any Biblical king with a divine mandate.  Without going into detail here, the Crusades were instrumental in saving what we know as "western" or "European" civilization.  That atrocities and regrettable episodes occurred during the pursuit of that series of wars, as they do in every conflict, I will not deny.  I also believe that in many cases, the treatment of native peoples by settlers and colonists from other lands was unjust, as in the case of Europeans and the Native American Indians, but this is not exclusivley a European phenomenon.

Quote:
Would you, by this ruling, approve of a christian Jihad against the non-christian nations if the Pope said God told him to do it?

A jihad spearheaded by whom?  The Swiss Guard, mebbe.  How many divisions has the Pope?  If he issued a call for another Crusade against Islam, which nations would rally to the Papal banners? 

Quote:
Of course you are only looking at things from your point of view.

No doubt.

Quote:
The muslims are also following the OT, therefore all of the fundamentalist terrorist tactics are also justified.

I think they are following an extreme interpretation of a dubious interpretation of a Christian heresy.  Islam is an illustration of what Europe could have become left to the heresy of Arianism or Nestorianism.

Quote:
This kind of reasoning is one of the reasons why we don't like religion. Even though you are quite a reasonable person and I don't think for a second that you would agree with my comments, you are justifying like actions in the bible. For less reasonable people it is not such a big step to do the same thing today. It has been used for an excuse thoughout history.

But, from my examples above, we still pursue the same methods of waging war against civil populations with and without "divine mandates"  Militant Islam, genocide in the former Yugoslavia, all indicate that religion is still invoked in the pursuit of clearly unethical and immoral policies.  But I would submit that religious conviction runs neck and neck, and is often a cover for jealousy, greed, and avarice as often as not.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Good.  We

totus_tuus wrote:

Good.  We agree that objective evil exists.

Just as a personal point of interest, what is your definition of 'evil?'

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Just as a

nigelTheBold wrote:
Just as a personal point of interest, what is your definition of 'evil?'

I suppose that at its most basic, evil is that which is harmful or injurious.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

Hmm. I know I posted several replies that appear not to have gone through. I'm sure not feeling like re-typing a 700 word essay all over again, so I'll just forget about it and re-type some of the important points.

kmisho wrote:
Appealing to god for an ethical system suffers the same problem. I will maintain that god's ethic is arbitrary unless you can provide me the basis for the derivation of his ethics. If you can do so, then god's ethics are independent of god. If you can't, then god's ethics are arbitrary.

This is the problem: given God's existence to begin with, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT HIS NATURE IS, BY DEFAULT IT IS THE ETHICAL STANDARD OF THE UNIVERSE.

God could be a baby-disembowler for all this definition cares. It doesn't change that what is ethically right is defined by His nature by definition. God's nature is a part of God Himself, so any saying "where does He get that?" is essentially a reversed First Cause argument, which is largely irrelevant to this discussion on ethics.

I expect some Atheists will have a hard time getting their heads around this. Like many Christian Doctrines, it isn't contradictory or arbitrary so much as very counter-intuitive.

Utterly and completely unacceptable and wrong. Amazing...

First, and of least importance, it is not a reverse of the first cause argument. I am assuming, and insisting on, a RATIONALE for ethics to be what they are. You are claiming, without any basis other than mere and mindless assertion that that god is the basis. I am not arguing with you. I am INFORMING you that this explanation is no explanation at all.

More importantly, however, your claim that "god could be a baby-dismbowler" makes my point for me, that god's ethics are arbitrary, because there is no explanation. It just is. It is equally tenable for me to remove god from the picture and claim that ethics are just what they are. It's the same as you're doing.

Your childish insult that atheists can't get their head around your ideas notwithstanding, you're argument is entirely semantic. I can define god as my left nostril just as easily as you can define ethics as whatever god thinks is right. Despite your own opinion of your geniushood, you have done nothing more than agree with me.

Employing the diversionary tactic of talking about god's nature won't work on me. You're still stuck with a necessarily arbitrary ethic with no basis.

 


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Relativity

totus_tuus wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Just as a personal point of interest, what is your definition of 'evil?'

I suppose that at its most basic, evil is that which is harmful or injurious.

The antibiotic is harmful or injurious to the disease organism, it is therefore evil.

The Cop is harmful or injurious to the felon, therefore policemen are evil.

Praying instead of seeking medical aid can be harmful or injurious to a small sick child, thus prayer is evil.

 

Sometimes a definition is too simplistic.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:The

Louis_Cypher wrote:
The antibiotic is harmful or injurious to the disease organism, it is therefore evil.

Indeed that is so.  But since we are human, we must, of necessity, limit our discussion to that which is evil for humanity.  A discussion of what is good for bacteria should probably be discussed in another thread.

Quote:
The Cop is harmful or injurious to the felon, therefore policemen are evil.

From the viewpoint of the felon, this may well be so.  But in our definition of evil, shouldn't we examine the greater good.  The felon was operating against the good of society; contrary to the interests of the bulk of humanity.  Therefore, the felon represents a greater evil.  By acting as a force to suppress that evil, the cop is acting for the greater good.

Quote:
Praying instead of seeking medical aid can be harmful or injurious to a small sick child, thus prayer is evil.

Quite so.  Prayer by itself fixes nothing.  Action is required.  God has provided us with resources to heal injury and cure disease, it is negligent not to avail ourselves of those cures.  Prayer, used in a negligent manner, can be evil, just as livesaving drugs used negligently can have evil effects.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:for the greater

Quote:
for the greater good.

Easily the best thing you've ever written here.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

I don't want to say that and I have never meant it. I bet that you do know more than I do about sociobiology, etc. BUT you are missing my point.

The only reason you (plural) are getting angry is that I have a point that you know you can't counter: I can create an ethical system from my metaphysical views, while the closest you can come is improvise one with a legislative system. The fact that I know less in the relevant fields adds the insult.

It occurs to me to ask: How are you creating an ethical system from your metaphysical views? Are you accepting the ethical system presented to you in the bible (ie: that what God wants is 'good' because God defines 'good'), or are you actually creating an ethical system on your own, as you claim to be?

From Webster, Ethics:

1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation2 a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics><Christian ethics> b plural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

 

So, by this standard, then saying "Good is defined as that which reaps the most benefit for the most people with the minimum penalty to the minimum number of people" does fit the criteria of 'a theory or system of moral values', or 'a guiding philosophy' or 'the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group'; or at least, it does so as well as 'Good is defined as being in accordance with the Will of God, because God defines what is Good'.

Given that is the case, then how are you claiming we cannot create an ethical system, while you can? It would seem that I have just done so, by the standards you have set with your 'metaphysical' ethical system; a system by which it is impossible to demonstrate the ethical or unethical nature of any act, as empirical and unequivocal demonstrations of the Will of God are, shall we say, rare to say the least. With this impossibility to demonstrate and validate the reasoning behind why an action is or is not ethical, by the way, your system becomes one that cannot be employed on any scale greater than the individual, and so is not useful for a society.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
for the greater good.

 

Easily the best thing you've ever written here.

OK.  And the cartoon means what?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Kevin R

totus_tuus wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
for the greater good.

 

Easily the best thing you've ever written here.

OK.  And the cartoon means what?

Well, basically, it means I'm a WH40K fan and cracking fun with a lame joke. Of course, since you're probably not allowed to play miniature or computer games with the sort of undertones Warhammer has, I guess the gag flopped.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Well,

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Well, basically, it means I'm a WH40K fan and cracking fun with a lame joke. Of course, since you're probably not allowed to play miniature or computer games with the sort of undertones Warhammer has, I guess the gag flopped.

I tinkered with Warhammer before, never floated my boat (not from any religious kinda restriction).  I'm more of an historical miniatures kinda guy.  I have a definite affinity for black powder era warfare.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Now now, it's not right to

Now now, it's not right to make those kinds of sweeping generalizations... nor are the generalizations right. Two friends of mine, both born-again baptist fundamentalists, had the biggest 40K armies in our local group... one played Orcs, the other Slaaneshi Chaos and Tyranids.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Following

totus_tuus wrote:

Following your path, I think we end up at the point where each and every evil act is inevitable based on events beyond the control of the individual.  My view makes evil the choice of each individual, an leaves the individual personally responsible for his actions.

I can see why you came to that conclusion, but that is not actually what I meant. Every individual (with perhaps the exception of those psychologically unable to make the decision) has the ability to choose, I was just trying to explain where the origin of evil in humans comes from as opposed to a supernatural origin based on a bad choice by Adam. It was just off the top of my head, though, so I expect it is flawed.

totus_tuus wrote:

I see God as being responsible for the existence of evil in the world to the extent that an automobile manufacturer is responsible for the car wreck I have by virtue of the fact that the manufacturer made my automobile.  God works to correct the damage done to His creation through His creation.  Hence, it is my responsibility to discern the will of God and to act in accordance with that will.  I am, you are, we all are the hands of God.

Here we are again at the point "but if God is omniscient and omnipotent"... if so God does have the ability to correct all of the damage done or even prevent it from happening. If an automobile manufacturer had the ability to totally control all aspects of the car and all of the factors around it, the it would indeed be criminally negligent if there was a car wreck.

Quote:
Would you, by this ruling, approve of a christian Jihad against the non-christian nations if the Pope said God told him to do it?

totus_tuus wrote:

A jihad spearheaded by whom?  The Swiss Guard, mebbe.  How many divisions has the Pope?  If he issued a call for another Crusade against Islam, which nations would rally to the Papal banners? 

You didn't answer my question.

Quote:
The muslims are also following the OT, therefore all of the fundamentalist terrorist tactics are also justified.

totus_tuus wrote:

I think they are following an extreme interpretation of a dubious interpretation of a Christian heresy.  Islam is an illustration of what Europe could have become left to the heresy of Arianism or Nestorianism.

That is just your opinion, based on your beliefs. They believe that they are doing God's will, just as the Spanish Inquisition believed it was doing God's will, just as Moses believed he was doing God's will when he destroyed nations to get land that God promised him.

Quote:
This kind of reasoning is one of the reasons why we don't like religion. Even though you are quite a reasonable person and I don't think for a second that you would agree with my comments, you are justifying like actions in the bible. For less reasonable people it is not such a big step to do the same thing today. It has been used for an excuse thoughout history.

totus_tuus wrote:

But, from my examples above, we still pursue the same methods of waging war against civil populations with and without "divine mandates"  Militant Islam, genocide in the former Yugoslavia, all indicate that religion is still invoked in the pursuit of clearly unethical and immoral policies.  But I would submit that religious conviction runs neck and neck, and is often a cover for jealousy, greed, and avarice as often as not.

I agree. But that is not the point. The point is that it IS still invoked in the pursuit of clearly unethical and immoral policies. Whatever the motives of the leaders, religion is the tool being used. It would be much harder to find a good reason for these attrocities without religion. I know there are wars without religion, but that is also not the point. Without religion there would be substantially less war and suffering.

I disagree with your definition of evil. Bacteria are not evil. Lions are not evil when they kill for food, even if it is a human. These are natural acts. A policeman capturing a criminal is not evil. Rape is evil. Bashing someone for fun, or for no reason is evil. Starving the people who won't vote for you is evil. I also believe telling people that people who do not believe in your God are less than you and should be discriminated against is also a form of evil.

 

 

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:I can see

ronin-dog wrote:
I can see why you came to that conclusion, but that is not actually what I meant. Every individual (with perhaps the exception of those psychologically unable to make the decision) has the ability to choose, I was just trying to explain where the origin of evil in humans comes from as opposed to a supernatural origin based on a bad choice by Adam. It was just off the top of my head, though, so I expect it is flawed.

Good.  I often get defensive on this point, since there are those who claim that we cannot make decisions, that we cannot know with any certainty that we have the ability to choose.  I am currently engaged in another thread with someone who advocates exactly that viewpoint.  I think that you and I have flogged the "origin of evil" horse to death already and have to agree to disagree.

Quote:
Here we are again at the point "but if God is omniscient and omnipotent"... if so God does have the ability to correct all of the damage done or even prevent it from happening. If an automobile manufacturer had the ability to totally control all aspects of the car and all of the factors around it, the it would indeed be criminally negligent if there was a car wreck.

Quite so, as long as the car was being used in accordance with its nature.  That is, as long as the car was being used for the purpose for which it was designed.

Quote:
You didn't answer my question.

The "jihad" question.  In the Christian tradition, it has already happened in the form of the Crusades.  That was a series of perfectly justifiable wars upon which hung the survival of what we now know as Europe.  As far as my participation in a modern "Crusade", let me begin by reitereating that I believe that such a call would be ridiculous because of the political realities of the modern world.  If such a call was issued by the Pope, ans an infallibale declaration that suck action was necessary, and it was clear that he pronounced such a call as the Vicar of Christ, I suppose, yes.  But it ain't likely.

Quote:
That is just your opinion, based on your beliefs.

No, it's a fact, supported pretty well by the historical record.

Quote:
They believe that they are doing God's will,...

They certainly do, and they are sorely mistaken...

Quote:
...just as the Spanish Inquisition believed it was doing God's will,...

...as were they, at times.

Quote:
...just as Moses believed he was doing God's will when he destroyed nations to get land that God promised him.

Undoubtedly.

Quote:
I agree. But that is not the point. The point is that it IS still invoked in the pursuit of clearly unethical and immoral policies. Whatever the motives of the leaders, religion is the tool being used. It would be much harder to find a good reason for these attrocities without religion. I know there are wars without religion, but that is also not the point. Without religion there would be substantially less war and suffering.

No doubt religion is a powerful motivator.  In the hands of the unscrupulous it can be very dangerous.  For this reason Jesus Christ established one Church to interpret His Word.  The problem is not religion, per se, but is the divergence of religious truth via personal interpretation.

Quote:
I disagree with your definition of evil. Bacteria are not evil. Lions are not evil when they kill for food, even if it is a human. These are natural acts. A policeman capturing a criminal is not evil. Rape is evil. Bashing someone for fun, or for no reason is evil. Starving the people who won't vote for you is evil. I also believe telling people that people who do not believe in your God are less than you and should be discriminated against is also a form of evil.

The definition was simply a fitting and broad dictionary definition I grabbed, since I was unsure of the direction in which the questioner was going to take the discussion of evil.  Allow me to now expand.  Let's say, in the broadest sense that evil is the opposition to the desires and needs of individuals.  Evil is, then, from the standpoint of human welfare, that which ought not to exist, but which, to the contrary, experience shows us does exist.  Evil, in its nature, is a negative.  That is, it is not something acquired, but is the absence, loss or deprivation of something required for perfection.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Ok...

You are a very interesting person TT...

I would define the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts and other like endevours as evil.

I admit I don't know enough about  history to squash your claim that the crusades were about defending Europe. If they were it seems they were as screwed up about it as the USA's efforts in the middle east etc to stop communism. I thought it was all about who had possesion of the holy land. Something that I don't think Jesus would really have cared about, certainly not enough to kill people over.

Quote:
For this reason Jesus Christ established one Church to interpret His Word.  The problem is not religion, per se, but is the divergence of religious truth via personal interpretation.

However many people disagree with the teachings of your church. And with its actions. Sorry to offend you, but I beleive it is one of the most detestable organizations on earth. In history, when the catholic church had great power over Europe, it was a horrible time. The church is just as much full of politics and corruption as any government. It is run by humans for their own purposes, twisted by their blind belief in following a book over a thousand years old.

My dictionary says that evil is wickedness. I think I agree with that, although the definition of wickedness will obviously differ with culture and religion.

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
OUR Sciences, our "well

OUR Sciences, our "well spring of intuition", has discovered that this "center of the universe", we named EARTH, on which we stand,

.... IS NOT what we thought it was  ..... Intuition says that even the "Big Band" is nothing more than another tiny transition event , of the grander, of big and SMALL. 

Hey, call it all god ,  but don't make shit up .... 

   What is religion ?  Religion is shit , "DOGMA", crap,  .... and that ain't so smart ....  CRUDE it is  ......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 Who would lie and why ? Well, that LIE, is the enemy to heal ( "love",  the wise did echo, over and over .... )

  All,   I AM begging you,   is "don't lie" ...... All I AM asking is,"what is NOT god?"  

 BTW, kids are crying, starving, and being bombed .... "Gods plan" some say ....       Ask yourself , WHAT AM I ? 

     

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

Quote:
...just as the Spanish Inquisition believed it was doing God's will,...

...as were they, at times.

What are the circumstances wherein one can contradict the will of an omnipotent being? I see none. The Spanish Inquisition would have no choice but to follow an ommipotent god's will, as that god is omnipotent. They must have been following God's will the whole time.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:totus_tuus

HisWillness wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

Quote:
...just as the Spanish Inquisition believed it was doing God's will,...

...as were they, at times.

What are the circumstances wherein one can contradict the will of an omnipotent being? I see none. The Spanish Inquisition would have no choice but to follow an ommipotent god's will, as that god is omnipotent. They must have been following God's will the whole time.

I think the "imperfect understanding of god's perfect will" escape hatch can be used there.  After all, if a bunch of his emissaries on earth misunderstand god's will and slaughter a few thousand people, is that god's fault?  Hardly.  I mean, it's not like he could somehow make his will more clearly known to those doing or ordering the slaughtering, could he?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I forgot to talk about Moses.

What Moses and his people did (well, if it weren't all fiction) was definately evil. All of the death and destruction he caused because he believed he was doing God's will. The only way you can justify it is that God's will is good. So if God says to do it then it is good, but if a man does the same thing without hearing voices, it's evil.

Bending back towards the thread here: how do you know that God is good (not using the definition "God is good by definition&quotEye-wink? If we use the bible as a character reference then God is evil.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yup ///  God?, whatever ...

Yup ///  God?, whatever ... Dogma?, fuck that. The god of the bibull, when turned to religion of worship, is evil prejudice clever dogma bunk. Dogma is our enemy, and even shows up in our science, and our politics reeks of it.